no m390 steel models ?

Folding said:
To sum the discussion up, nobody actually knows why M390 has not become a mainstream steel.

Too bad: nothing wrong with having H1-like corrosion resistance+S30V-like hardness in one blade.
Click to expand...

A. That wasn't at all the question you asked in the OP. B. You've been given a number of answers, the primary ones being cost vs need. C. Look into the Vanax and Nitrobe 77 and ask the same questions. There are many reasons not to use a steel despite the fact that it may have desirable properties.
 
Insipid Moniker said:
A. That wasn't at all the question you asked in the OP. B. You've been given a number of answers, the primary ones being cost vs need. C. Look into the Vanax and Nitrobe 77 and ask the same questions. There are many reasons not to use a steel despite the fact that it may have desirable properties.
Click to expand...

A. ?

B.
Here
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...-no-m390-steel-models?p=14460557#post14460557

C. Certainly, many bizarre steels. I am however asking about a steel that Spyderco *has* used
for a short period of time.
 
getting back to the original question: in manufacturing, the supply chain is really important. as stated by numerous folks, bohler's m390 is essentially the same thing as carpenter's cts 204p. given Spyderco's close working relationship with carpenter and crucible, it just makes sense to keep going back to your main lineup of materials vendors as long as they are doing a good job of providing quality materials at a reasonable price. if, for whatever reason, that were to change, I'm sure the folks at Spyderco would evaluate material quality versus the cost of reputation and customer demand, etc.

I don't remember where but I'm fairly sure I remember Sal Glesser himself talking about various steels that Spyderco has tested even though they haven't put it into use - they are well aware of the european steels out there and have run tests on them, but their current preference is to stick with their go-to guys at Carpenter and Crucible. Just because it's an american product rather than a more "exotic" european product doesn't make it mediocre, it makes it an excellent performer.

also, I think the whole chase-the-new-supersteel thing gets a little out of hand sometimes. just because there are other, fancier steels out there, doesn't mean my S30V blades suddenly stop being able to slice, hold an edge, or resist corrosion. one of my favorite users outside of the Spyderco family is a Buck knife wearing 420HC, which I love for plenty of reasons, even if the edge rolls whenever it hits something really hard. my outdoor user knives include a beater blade in 5160 spring steel that totally gets the job done. not exotic, not a supersteel, but exactly the right ratio of performance to price that I am looking for.
 
Folding said:
A. ?

B.
Here
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...-no-m390-steel-models?p=14460557#post14460557

C. Certainly, many bizarre steels. I am however asking about a steel that Spyderco *has* used
for a short period of time.
Click to expand...

And Kershaw used Vanax and Carsontech used Nitrobe 77. Spyderco is using a direct equivalent to M390 in a few models, so they've essentially switched manufacturers rather than ditched the steel.

I also saw your answer on grinding and you need to concentrate a bit more on researching that. As stated before, steels like M390 are difficult to machine, that means replacing more equipment and more man hours spent working on it. The cost of a piece of M390 the size of a folding knife blade is much, much lower than the cost of the time it takes a skilled technician to make it into a knife blade. You're stuck with either more paid hours or a lower total product yield, then figure in the increased cost of blades that are flawed or broken and you inevitability have to charge more per unit to bring those knives to market.

Now Spyderco has decided that it's worth the time and expense to include high wear resistance steels on several models, but they also have to consider the overall market they cater to. That means there will always be many more models with more affordable steels than there will with premium steels. Just the nature of the game.

Now, given the rapid march of technology, you may well see 204P or M390 or 20CV or whatever name it's going by become a standard steel in their catalog, but right now they're keeping it on the premium models aimed at steel freaks and collectors. I'd love to see more of it, but it will take time.
 
Folding said:
There have been several answers.

I.
M390 is less corrosion resistant than H1...
-Maybe. But in my own tests with salt water, H1 developed stain spots similar to M390
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/1261716-Picturs-of-my-steels-rusting-test-H1-m390-ZDP-189-N690Co-CTS-XHP
M390 is rather impressive in that test.
Unlike ZDP-189 and XHP, which Spyderco markets as stainless.

II.
Supply restrictions of M390 vs. S30V or VG-10.
-This is just a steel. There is no fundamental limitations with any of its components.
If there is demand, the manufacturer would certainly find a way to supply the due quantities.

III.
Cost of M390 stock vs. S30V or VG-10.
-The costs of these steels are tens of $ per pound, in the ball park of $40/pound reading
knife makers posts. Steel price is not a big factor in Spyderco knife price.

IV.
Time spend grinding (And therefore more cost) M390 vs. S30V or VG-10.
-That was my own suggestion, and it is pure fantasy. Grinding may cost just $0.2 more, I don't know.

V.
And I'm sure the differences in the heat treating are also a factor.
-Maybe, but I guess if a company is in a knife business, HT should be the last reason to worry?
Unless there is a real, unusual issue with HT and M390 steel. If so, here could be the answer!
Click to expand...

From your post I'd gauge that you know more about steels, knife making, as well as supply and demand than everyone, including the folks at Spyderco (And other makers) that supply a good deal of us (The general population) with excellent knives.

When are you planning to start a company supplying blades of M390 at the price of S30V or less, maybe even 8Cr13Mov or 420C?

If you can do so I'll be interested...but I find it hard to believe that such a thing would happen in such a competitive environment with so many competing companies. If one company could produce a car twice as efficient as the rest of the competition at half the price, I'm sure they would because it would be a huge boon in sales. If there were only a few companies it would be more believable, but with as many competing companies in the knife industry the production of knives in a steel such as M390 (At the price of a "Lower" steel like 420C, AUS-8, 8Cr13MoV, etc.) would easily see a lot of the competing companies out of business...yet that hasn't happened. There could also very well be reasons that haven't yet been listed, yet you clearly know better...
 
Last edited:
Thanks to all who contributed. Insipid Moniker and kubelik made rather good summaries, I think.
 
I will throw this out. Why does Spyderco still use Bohler Elmax then? There are lots of other options for the Lion spy but they continue using this?
 
As many has been pointing out, CTS 204P and M390 are similar. I hate to mention "other company" in the Spyderco thread, but Benchmade are found of using and their version of Sprint run works with M390.


To address "Folding"'s question.
I. M390 is less corrosion resistant than H1...
This is true. But H1 is not as wear resistant or tough. Nitrogen replaces carbon, but will not form hard carbide. It's just the molecular size are not well aligned to iron. Remember, steel is an alloy.

II Supply restrictions of M390 vs. S30V or VG-10.
It may be. BU has already seems to have very good deal with Benchmade with M390. But I'm sure it is not something they can not overcome. In my opinion, Spyderco may be "differentiating" and aligning with Carpenter steel.

III. Cost of M390 stock vs. S30V or VG-10.
This is a factor, but no more than CTS204p. As others have mentioned, users/buyers of knives with super steels are die hard steel snobs. Sure, they will like to get them, but actual number may not be large enough.

IV. Time spend grinding
This "workability" is another factor. But S90V or CPM-10V are much more difficult to grind. M390 is harder than S30V but not drastically up there. I don't think this is the main issue of not having M390. Who knows.

V. And I'm sure the differences in the heat treating
I was reminded by design engineer that HT consumes quite a bit of resource. Imagine heating it up to thousand degrees, only to cool down later? This is big cost. If you include second heat treatment and annealing. (hold heat for 2 hours and so on..)

BUT... Would it cost more than say S30V or VG10? may be a little, but seeing cryo quench is "recommended" it seems to take more steps. Again comparing to CTS204 with very similar ingredients lead me to believe that this is costly, but no reason to take M390 over CTS204p. Meaning choice of steel between those two are nil.



Speaking of M390vs CTS204p, I have noted that the differences I know are BU boasts their initial grain size before sinter process to be "3rd generation", meaning much finer grind and low oxygen process). Considering high chromium steel tends to be brittle without means to restriction carbide growth, it is clear the steel requires more intense process.

Both steels indicates heat treatment require multiple steps, and cryo quenching is also recommended. It is more complex than S30V, VG10.
 
CryoGuy5272 said:
I will throw this out. Why does Spyderco still use Bohler Elmax then? There are lots of other options for the Lion spy but they continue using this?
Click to expand...

This actually perfectly reinforces our supply chain talk. The Lionspy is a collaboration with LionSteel, manufactured by LionSteel in their Italian factory. So it's actually not surprising that the Italians use Bohler's Elmax as they are next door to Austria.
 
kubelik said:
This actually perfectly reinforces our supply chain talk. The Lionspy is a collaboration with LionSteel, manufactured by LionSteel in their Italian factory. So it's actually not surprising that the Italians use Bohler's Elmax as they are next door to Austria.
Click to expand...

The opposite argument is also true.
if Spyderco already has Lionspy to provide ELMAX, they need no extra efforts to source M390.
 
Folding said:
The opposite argument is also true.
if Spyderco already has Lionspy to provide ELMAX, they need no extra efforts to source M390.
Click to expand...

possibly. however, the way I see it (and of course, I'm just using my consumer knowledge to make a guess), is that LionSteel using Bohler to make Lionspys at LionSteel in Italy is actually quite different than Spyderco using Bohler to make other knives in Golden. In the event that something were to happen in the manufacturing process, LionSteel and Bohler could rapidly turn around a solution with minimal costs incurred. However, if something were to happen in the manufacturing process while out in Golden, there would be significant lead times and additional costs incurred Spyderco and/or Bohler. so unless Spyderco starts outsourcing more work to LionSteel, it's unlikely that there'd be an advantage to using more m390 over more cts 204p.

Just take a look at what's happening right now on the west coast with the port workers' strike. the longer your supply chain, the more chances that something could go wrong, and the more significant the cost to rectify the situation.
 
kubelik said:
possibly. however, the way I see it (and of course, I'm just using my consumer knowledge to make a guess), is that LionSteel using Bohler to make Lionspys at LionSteel in Italy is actually quite different than Spyderco using Bohler to make other knives in Golden. In the event that something were to happen in the manufacturing process, LionSteel and Bohler could rapidly turn around a solution with minimal costs incurred. However, if something were to happen in the manufacturing process while out in Golden, there would be significant lead times and additional costs incurred Spyderco and/or Bohler. so unless Spyderco starts outsourcing more work to LionSteel, it's unlikely that there'd be an advantage to using more m390 over more cts 204p.

Just take a look at what's happening right now on the west coast with the port workers' strike. the longer your supply chain, the more chances that something could go wrong, and the more significant the cost to rectify the situation.
Click to expand...

BINGO!!! I think you hit the nail on the head with this statement.
 
A big US knife maker B has no issues with the M390 supply for years now.
I think this is evidence against supply concerns for that particular steel, isn't it ?
 
I know knife maker "B" charges more for their m390 than spyderco. I'm no businessman, but if you can obtain a similar/identical steel to m390 (i.e. CTS204p) from a U.S. Manufacturer that might cut down on overhead. Plus why not try to support the U.S. worker and company, as I would love to see spyderco move more toward this ideal.
 
Only trying get community knowledge about the situation and not finding a convincing answer as yet.

A company tries and a company abandons. The company knows, but we are all just guessing.
I hoped for a leak from a Spyderco employee, or a friend thereof.
 
Last edited:
I should probably have my head examined before (or after) sticking it into this rabbit hole, but...

Company B has had a more complicated history with M390 than many here probably realize. They sold some knives with M390 blades for a while, then stopped. There was a lot of speculation about why, and rumors about quality control problems and very poor yield ratios. After a period of time (I don't remember how long - might have been a year or so), they started selling M390 blades again, and by and large people are happy. However, there is a current thread in the manufacturer's forum describing one knowledgeable customer's dissatisfaction with an M390 blade and the company's follow-up.
 
JNewell said:
I should probably have my head examined before (or after) sticking it into this rabbit hole, but...
Click to expand...
I am glad that you did, becausr I had a strong desire to reply to that post
JNewell said:
Company B has had a more complicated history with M390 than many here probably realize. They sold some knives with M390 blades for a while, then stopped. There was a lot of speculation about why, and rumors about quality control problems and very poor yield ratios. After a period of time (I don't remember how long - might have been a year or so), they started selling M390 blades again, and by and large people are happy. However, there is a current thread in the manufacturer's forum describing one knowledgeable customer's dissatisfaction with an M390 blade and the company's follow-up.
Click to expand...
I am always listening to what Benchmaniac 707 would say (evfen I like Ares much more than 707).
In addition, I agree with everybody above, who said that we need M390 Native5 now :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top